Public discourse in the U.S. today contains ideas I never could have imagined in the country we love.

“Death of US democracy,” “impending civil war,” “failed state” … the list goes on. That we seem to be approaching a sociopolitical crisis seems to be one of the few areas of popular agreement in our increasingly fractured nation. Are we in fact on a downward trajectory with little hope of recovery? While I for one have not given up hope, I can readily imagine that my hope is misplaced.

Consider the observations of former Pres. Jimmy Carter in the Jan. 9 edition of the New York Times. Carter writes, “According to the Survey Center on American Life, 36% of Americans — almost 100 million adults across the political spectrum — agree that ‘the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.'” The Washington Post recently reported that roughly 40% of Republicans believe that violent action against the government is “sometimes justified.”

I wonder whether those holding such views have thought seriously about what a resort to violence would mean. We have no shortage of images from around the world as to what domestic violence would entail. Have we thought seriously about blood in the streets, communities ablaze, dead parents who cannot parent, dead children who will never grow up, young lovers denied the joys of aging together? If not, it is time to think about the horrors that could await us should we not begin to rediscover the tools of national reconciliation.

Some of those who might be tempted to resort to violence to “save a way of life,” may actually be in the best position to inflict violence on others by virtue of the weapons they possess. But, we can be sure that the majority who would suffer the first loss would find the means to counterattack. And so it goes. As illustrated by so many civil wars, the blood is shed, the people die, and eventually both sides are exhausted and lose the will to fight, wondering in the end why passions and stupidity brought them to such a miserable state.

There is little doubt that the upcoming elections in 2022 and 2024 will test my hopefulness. The efforts of Republicans across the country to gain control of our electoral system is certainly a worrisome sign that we could be headed for minority rule. We have seen tactics like this used successfully by aspiring autocrats in relatively immature democracies. Lacking the democratic traditions and civil society strengths found in more mature democracies, authoritarianism can take hold. But, as Thomas Friedman has recently noted, a disenfranchised majority of American citizens, conditioned by democratic norms, are unlikely to passively accept minority manipulations of electoral procedures. If not passive acceptance, then what?

Lest this be misinterpreted as another liberal, anti-Republican screed, we should recognize that the left bears its share of responsibility for the socio-political fracturing we see. Among other things, the often mindless promotion of identity politics in university and secondary schools, and in so much of the media, lies at the heart of this responsibility.

Our era is filled with instances where commitments to religious, racial and ethnic identities have overridden broader community responsibilities and led to destructive communal violence. While such identities have great meaning for people, and should be defended, in socially complex societies like the United States, we should recognize that the pursuit of narrow identities should not be allowed to dominate commitments to the larger whole. Until recently, the success of the United States, as a society, depended on a willingness to recognize that a commitment to the norms and institutions of the whole creates space for the pursuit of meaningful religious and ethnic identities. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how intelligent proponents of identity politics — whether on the left or the right — fail to understand that the celebration of narrow identities has the potential to lead to something resembling “ethnic nationalism” or, as we might say, “identity nationalism,” which, like “white nationalism” eats away at the core of “civic nationalism,” a political identity which celebrates shared citizenship.

This “civic nationalism” (as opposed to “ethnic” and “identity” nationalisms) has provided the United States a stable polity which has done so much to make ours a successful country. The citizens of a country guided by civic nationalism commit themselves to legitimate political institutions and principles of justice and tolerance, and to the belief that community membership is open to all who share these commitments, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity.

While recognizing the political abuses found in our history, it is nevertheless time to rediscover and strengthen our traditions of civic nationalism if we want to arrest the downward trajectory in our political life. There is no higher public calling for political leaders of both parties and ordinary citizens.

— — —

Richard P. Suttmeier lives in Keene Valley.